The economics of anti-corruption rallies

Protest movements in the Philippines these days, especially the “Trillion Peso March” and other anti-corruption rallies, have clear economic impacts, both positive and potentially harmful.

Let’s start with the source: The main motivation for the Trillion Peso March is the corruption scandal in flood-control projects. There were “ghost projects” and substandard construction. The flood-control anomaly caused massive economic losses: an estimated P118.5 billion was “lost” from 2023 to 2025 due to corruption. There is even more widespread fraud than official figures.

In addition to corruption, Filipinos seem to feel that public funds are being wasted, not going to the right projects, and more often in favor of big contractors (CLTG, the Discayas, etc.) than the real needs of the people. Corruption of this magnitude undermines investor confidence as they perceive government spending as non-transparent, affecting long-term investment.

Positive impact

A major rally like the Trillion Peso March sends a clear message to the Marcos-Duterte regime: there is a strong public demand for accountability. If this is heeded, it could lead to reforms in the procurement system, stricter regulations, and better monitoring of projects which could ultimately contribute to more just and effective spending of public funds.

Some in the business community have said that if the government responds properly (through genuine reform), the protests could be an opportunity to show that the country is serious about transparency, which could boost long-term investor confidence.

The broad participation of various sectors (students, churches, civil society organizations) shows that there is deep democratic engagement, not just protests for chaos but for real change. This is essential for long-term institutional growth.

Risks

If the government, in response to the public anger, implements populist policies (e.g., large benefits, large expenditures), it could stress the country’s fiscal space. According to economists, the Philippines’ debt is close to high levels; it may not be sustainable if measures and economic reforms are not taken carefully. Major allegations of corruption and subsequent investigations could delay the release of funds for projects (because they need to be validated first), which is a risk for the rapid implementation of flood control or other public works.

In the very short term of the President—even if he is still a Marcos—there is a possibility that investor sentiment will worsen due to political risk. Big protests indicate political instability or governance risk. While there is little news of widespread violence, rallies that are conducted on EDSA and Luneta are often accompanied by impacts on traffic, business operations in nearby areas, and other logistics. This could cause direct economic costs to local businesses or daily operations in Metro Manila, especially if the protests persist.

Opportunities and recommendations

The government’s proactive engagement is already there, but it should be intensified and made clearer, taking advantage of the momentum of the protests and making it the beginning of reforms, including the voluntary resignation of high-ranking officials so that they can no longer influence legitimate investigations and actions/decisions of the NBI, ICI, Ombudsman, and Sandiganbayan. They can reduce corruption in the future and show investors that the government is serious.

According to Michael Henry Yusingco, Marcos Jr.’s posturing and the responses from street protests and social media should not be merely symbolic but should include legal and structural reforms: better procurement systems, public transparency (open bidding and open hearings), stronger sanctions for offenders, and fund recovery.

Less riot, more substance

It’s not clear how many disruptive, fringe elements there are, especially in the anti-corruption rallies these days (Sen. Imee Marcos taking center stage to ask his brother-president to resign was “wala sa usapan”; some say it would have been good if she had asked VP Sara Duterte also to resign).

In the Trillion Peso March and many other big protests, most reports point to a broader and more organized movement for transparency and accountability, not a simple riot. But this is also a risk that is always examined in politics: In mass actions, there is the possibility, as with any movement, that there are elements who can abuse the momentum. Today, many professionals, business groups, and learning institutions consider the protests to be legitimate demands, not destabilization tactics.

The current protest movement in the Philippines is not just an emotional response. It has a deep economic basis; the rampant corruption in public projects, especially flood control, has direct costs to the economy and the public treasury. Authorities should not just fight rallies, but use them to promote transparency, accountability, and stronger institutions.

Let’s give a scenario of a 10-year gain: If the P100B fund is recovered, it will have P150B annually, and P1.5T by the year 2035. If P200B is recovered, its gain will be P300B annually, and P3T after ten years. Adding investor trust, our gain will be at P600B annually, and by 2035, it will be P6-7T pesos. Better also say that there is an impact per region (VisMin against Mega Manila), that we use elasticity of growth to poverty reduction and effect on the Philippines’ credit rating, and annual savings, but let’s not listen to Ralph Recto. All he knows are expenses and relocation funds, even health funds. Or let’s listen to public officials like him, but let’s make our fight for good governance heard.

Thinking about the 10-year gain, our Gen Z and the Millennials need to act like a pillar, watching over their mothers’ taxes (with Cielo Magno’s Tax ng Ina Mo as their music background) and having what it takes to dream big.